Task-Based Language Teaching and Learning:   An Overview
Author
Rebecca L. Oxford
University of Maryland
Biography:
Rebecca Oxford, Ph.D., is Professor and Distinguished Scholar-Teacher at the University of Maryland
Abstract:
The purpose of this article is to present an overview of second language (L2) task-based language teaching and learning. Prabhu (1987) deserves credit for originating the task-based teaching and learning, based on the concept that effective learning occurs when students are fully engaged in a language task, rather than just learning about language. Ellis (2003b) distinguished between task-supported teaching, in which tasks are a means for activating learners' prior L2 knowledge by developing fluency, and task-based teaching, in which tasks comprise the foundation of the whole curriculum. I am concerned here with the latter of the two. To address the topic, the article is arranged in the following way: (a) the concept of "task," (b) analyzing tasks, (c) sequencing tasks, and (d) implications for future research.


1. The Concept of "Task"
The idea of "task" is not as simple as it might seem. Many definitions and perspectives exist, as shown by the list in Table 1. Each one is discussed in turn.


Table 1. Possible definitions of and perspectives on the concept of "task"
Task as . . .
An imposed tax, duty, or piece of work
An everyday piece of work
A job responsibility
A general activity or exercise for L2 learners
An outcome-oriented L2 instructional segment
A behavioral framework for research
A behavioral framework for classroom learning





Task as an Imposed Task, Duty, or Piece of Work
An early definition of task comes from Old North French tasque, which meant a duty, a tax, or a piece of work imposed as a duty. Tasque originated from the Latin tax?re, to evaluate, estimate, or assess (Barnhart 1988, p. 1117). This suggests a task is externally imposed and might be onerous.

Task as an Everyday Piece of Work
Long (1985) defined a task as "… a piece of work undertaken for oneself or for others, freely or for some reward . . . [B]y 'task' is meant the hundred and one things people do in everyday life, at work, at play, and in between" (p. 89).

Task as a Job Responsibility
Task also refers to a job responsibility or duty, that is, a specific part of a particular job that a person is asked to do. For example, the job of an administrative assistant requires the task of scheduling appointments for the supervisor. Jobs can be "task-analyzed" for personnel and training purposes (Smith, 1971). This general view of task again implies that the task is externally imposed on the person from outside.

Task as a General Activity or Exercise for L2 Learners
Many L2 textbooks present activities or exercises for learners to accomplish. Sometimes these activities or exercises are discussed as tasks, without a particular emphasis on outcome.

Task as an Outcome-Oriented L2 Instructional Segment
This perspective is similar to the one above except that it focuses on an outcome that the L2 learner is expected to produce or attain. In this perspective, the task is an outcome-oriented segment of work in a curriculum or lesson plan. This idea came from adult vocational education, then spread to elementary education and other fields, such as L2 learning and teaching (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Breen (1987) defined a language task as a structured language endeavor which has a specific objective, appropriate content, a particular working procedure, and a range of possible outcomes for those who undertake it. Breen suggested that language tasks can be viewed as a range of work plans, from simple to complex, with the overall purpose of facilitating language learning. In fact, he asserted, "All materials for language teaching . . . can be seen as compendia of tasks" (Breen, 1987, p. 26). In a similar vein, Prabhu stated that a task "is an activity that requires learners to arrive at an outcome from given information through some process of thought, and which allows teachers to control and regulate that process" (1987, p. 17). These definitions underscore the idea that a task is a structured instructional plan that requires learners to move toward an objective or outcome using particular (teacher-given) working procedures or processes. Again, a task is imposed from the outside and does not come from the learner.

Task as a Behavioral Framework for Research
Activity Theory, based on work by Vygotsky (1978) and his colleagues, asks a fundamental question: "What is the individual or group doing in a particular setting?" (Wertsch, 1985, p. 211). Drawing on Activity Theory, Coughlin and Duff (1994, p. 175) distinguished between an L2 task and an L2 activity. In their view, task refers to the "behavioral blueprint provided to students in order to elicit data" for research or assessment. Coughlin and Duff defined activity as "the behavior that is actually produced when an individual (or group) performs a task" (1994, p. 175). This distinction can be crucial if we consider that a task may trigger different activities across individuals and in the same individual on different occasions.

Task as a Behavioral Framework for Classroom Learning
In an instructional setting, following Vygotskian concepts, a task consists of the instructions or directions that the teacher gives students for learning-that is, the behavioral blueprint provided to students in order to elicit learning. In this context, an activity is what students actually do with these instructions, that is, the behavior (regardless of whether it is overtly observable or purely mental) that occurs when students perform a task that has been presented to them.

Summary of the Definitions of Task
There are many viewpoints about and definitions of task. Initially the definitions involved a tax, piece of work, everyday activity, job responsibility, or general activity for learners. In L2 teaching and learning, task is now often viewed as an outcome-oriented instructional segment or as a behavioral framework for research or classroom learning. Most often it still has the connotation of being externally imposed on a person or group, although the connotation of being burdensome or taxing is no longer emphasized. I now turn to ways by which we can analyze tasks for task-based teaching and learning.

2. Analyzing Tasks for Task-Based Teaching and Learning
My analysis of tasks includes the following dimensions: task goals, task types, high versus low stakes, input genre and modality, linguistic complexity, cognitive load and cognitive complexity, interaction and output demands, amount of planning allowed or encouraged, timing, teacher and learner factors, and (as influenced by prior factors) overall task difficulty.

Task Goals
Potential task goals fall into three main groups: focus on meaning, focus on form, and focus on forms (Long, 1997; Salaberry, 2001). These are summarized below and in Table 2. Additional task goals are also described.

Possible Task Goal A: Focus on Meaning
The first potential goal is to focus on meaning. In this type of syllabus, learners receive chunks of ongoing, communicative L2 use, presented in lively lessons with no presentation of structures or rules and no encouragement for learners to discover rules for themselves. This is an analytic syllabus (Wilkins, 1976), in which any understanding of the structure of the language must come from the learner, who might or might not perceive regularities and induce rules (Long & Crookes, 1992, p. 28). Grammar is viewed as developing naturally when the learner is ready for a given structure, so no structures should be discussed. The focus on meaning is sometimes not considered instruction at all, because the teacher can be viewed as simply providing opportunities for L2 exposure (Doughty, 2003).

Possible Task Goal B: Focus on Form
The second potential goal is to focus on form within a communicative, meaningful context by confronting learners with communicative language problems (breakdowns) and causing them to take action to solve the problems. In Long's (1985) view, a focus on form occurs when attention is mostly on meaning but is shifted to form occasionally when a communication breakdown occurs. Many techniques are used to meet this goal, such as "recasts" in which the instructor gives a corrective reformulation of the learner's incorrect production or understanding. With a recast, the learner must discern the difference between the correct contextualized form and the original contextualized form and figure out the underlying relationships and rule. Because the learner is involved with language analysis, this is an analytic syllabus (Wilkins, 1976). In this mode, ". . .[T]hree major components define a focus on form . . .[:] (a) can be generated by the teacher or the learner(s), (b) it is generally incidental (occasional shift of attention) and (c) it is contingent on learners' needs (triggered by perceived problems)" (Salaberry, 2001, p. 105).

However, as Salaberry (2001, adapted from Johnson, 1996) noted, a different type of focus on form occurs when the forms are preselected for tasks, rather than arising from learners' needs (the communication problem or breakdown during a task). This alternative focus on form is found particularly in communication-oriented textbooks, where a focus on meaning comes first, followed by a focus on form. Constraints of textbook tasks cause preselection of forms to occur, thus reducing the possibility of a spontaneous and incidental focus on form, such as that found in Long's model. In the preplanned focus on form model (Salaberry, 2001), the goal is to focus on preselected forms related to meaning-oriented tasks.

Possible Task Goal C: Focus on FormS
The third potential goal is to focus on formS by means of presenting specific, preplanned forms one at a time in the hope that learners will master them before they need to use them to negotiate meaning. The learner must synthesize all of the material himself or herself; hence a focus on formS syllabus is a synthetic syllabus (Wilkins, 1976). Lessons tend to be dull, sometimes arcane, and not oriented toward communication, as though L2 learning could be reduced to memorizing accumulated, small items and mechanistically applying myriad rules.

A Caveat about These Goals
Looking back at the second goal, we see that it combines elements of the first and the third. It provides an emphasis on meaning but with an insertion of form when and where needed by learners. Skehan cautioned that distinctions among these goals are not totally firm because "… the two underlying characteristics of tasks, avoidance of specific structures and engagement of worthwhile meanings, are matters of degree, rather than being categorical" (1998, p. 96).

Potential Additional Task Goals
Additional task goals might include learning how to learn, that is, learning to select and use particularly relevant learning strategies and understanding one's own learning style (Honeyfield, 1993; Nunan, 1989; Oxford, 1990, 1996, 2001b). Learners can learn how to learn while doing a task that involves both language and content, as demonstrated by the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach (Chamot & O'Malley, 1994). Goals may also focus on content knowledge, as in learning mathematics or social studies through the L2 (Honeyfield, 1993; Oxford, Lee, Snow, & Scarcella, 1994) or may relate to cultural awareness and sociocultural competence (Nunan 1989; Scarcella & Oxford, 1992). Task goals may differ according to whether there is a single, common task goal (convergence) or multiple task goals (divergence) (Richards & Rodgers, 2001).


Table 2. Possible goals for L2 tasks: Relationship to various types of syllabi for task-based teaching and learning
Goal and Syllabus Type Goal Statement/Description Source
A. Focus on meaning --
Analytic syllabus
"Learners are presented with gestalt, comprehensible samples of communicative L2 use, e.g., in the form of content-based lessons in sheltered subject-matter or immersion classrooms, lessons that are often interesting, relevant, and relatively successful. It is the learner, not the teacher or textbook writer, who must analyze the L2, albeit at a subconscious level, inducing grammar rules simply from exposure to the input, i.e., from positive evidence alone. Grammar is considered to be best learned incidentally and implicitly, and in the case of complex grammatical constructions and some aspects of pragmatic competence, only to be learnable that way." Long (1997, Option 2, Focus on meaning, 2)
B. Focus on form-
Analytic syllabus
"Focus on form refers to how attentional resources are allocated, and involves briefly drawing students' attention to linguistic elements (words, collocations, grammatical structures, pragmatic patterns, and so on), in context, as they arise incidentally in lessons whose overriding focus is on meaning, or communication, the temporary shifts in focal attention being triggered by students' comprehension or production problems." Long (1997, Option 3, Focus on Form, 1)
This model of focus on form, like the one above, is "based on the use of language as a means to an end (accomplishment of a communicative task) . . . [and] focuses on meaning as a whole first. The focus on the grammatical item comes afterwards, but the selection of the specific grammatical components may be arbitrary [i.e., not connected with a specific communicative problem]. . . . [This model] is represented in textbooks where we find a pre-determined order (by nature of the constraints that textbook authors face). . . ." Salaberry (2001), p. 104
C. Focus on forms -
Synthetic syllabus
"The teacher or textbook writer divides the L2 into segments of various kinds (phonemes, words, collocations, morphemes, sentence patterns, notions, functions, tones, stress and intonation patterns, and so on), and presents these to the learner in models, initially one item at a time, in a sequence determined by (rather vague, usually intuitive) notions of frequency, valency, or . . . 'difficulty'. Eventually, it is the learner's job to synthesize the parts for use in communication. . ." Long (1997, Option 1: Focus on Forms, 1)

Task Types
Many types of L2 tasks exist, particularly in the realm of communicative instruction. Here is a listing of some key task types found in the literature: problem-solving (Nunan, 1989; Pica et al., 1993; Willis, 1996a); decision-making (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Nunan, 1989; Pica et al., 1993); opinion-gap or opinion exchange (Nunan, 1989; Pica et al., 1993); information-gap (Doughty & Pica,1986; Nunan, 1989; Oxford, 1990; Pica et al., 1993); comprehension-based (Ikeda & Takeuchi, 2000; Scarcella & Oxford, 1992; Tierney et al., 1995); sharing personal experiences, attitudes, and feelings (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Oxford, 1990; Willis, 1996a, 1996b); basic cognitive processes, such as comparing or matching (Nunan, 1989; Willis, 1998), listing (Willis, 1998), and ordering/sorting (Willis, 1998); language analysis (Willis 1996a, 1996b, 1998); narrative (Foster & Skehan, 1996); reasoning-gap (Nunan, 1989); question-and-answer (Nunan 1989); structured and semi-structured dialogues (Nunan, 1989); and role-plays and simulations (Crookall & Oxford, 1990; Richards & Rodgers, 2001).

In addition, task types include picture stories (Nunan, 1989); puzzles and games (Nunan, 1989); interviews, discussions, and debates (Nunan, 1989; Oxford, 1990; Richards & Rodgers, 2001); and everyday functions, such as telephone conversations and service encounters (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). Task types also encompass practice with communication/conversation strategies, learning strategies, and text-handling strategies (Cohen, 1998; Honeyfield, 1993; Nunan, 1989; O'Malley & Chamot, 1990; Oxford, 1990). Additional task types can lead to communicative videomaking (Talbott & Oxford, 1989, 1991). For more on various types of tasks, see Bygate et al. (2001) and Yule (1997).

Many task types involve multiple skills and subskills, such as reading a passage for comprehension and then doing something with the information that has been read, such as answering questions, discussing the information, making a decision, solving a problem, and expressing how one feels about a given situation.

Importance of the Task: Low or High Stakes
One aspect of external pressure concerns whether the task is perceived as important, specifically whether it is viewed as a low- or high-stakes requirement. In a low-stakes, relaxed task, there is less stress during the task. In a high-stakes task or set of tasks, such as those found on an English competency examination for graduation or for university entrance, much more anxiety can be expected. Those learners who tend to be anxious anyway may become particularly tense while doing a high-stakes task. Skehan (1996a) discussed the differential effects of low- and high-stakes tasks.

Timing
The amount of time allotted for the task can be a major factor (Honeyfield, 1993; Skehan, 1996a), especially for L2 learners who are at the beginning and low intermediate levels. When a task is "speeded," that is, when only a certain amount of time is given to complete the task, it might become more difficult for some learners. If students are allowed to take all the time they need, i.e., if the task is "unspeeded," this takes off some of the pressure. In-class tasks do generally have a time limit, although, depending on the task type and the goals, some tasks that are unfinished can be done as homework assignments.

Input Genre and Modality
Tasks can be analyzed according to the input genre (newspaper article, diary, recipe, diary, TV show, conversational talk, lecture, and so on) and modality (e.g., written, spoken, graphic/pictorial) (Honeyfield, 1993; Nunan, 1989; Skehan, 1996a). Genre and modality interact. For instance, a newspaper article can be a written text and an accompanying picture, and it can also be read aloud.

Richards and Rodgers (2001) cited a range of input materials for L2 tasks, including books, newspaper, video, TV, and so on. Interest level of the learners in the material is particularly crucial. If materials are perceived as boring or as too easy or too difficult, learners will be unmotivated to do the task (Scarcella & Oxford, 1992). Publishers provide materials of wide interest to most students, although cultural factors such as religion can prevent some materials from being used for L2 tasks in particular locations.

Also, relevance and suitability of task input-and of tasks themselves-also depend on whether the L2 learning occurs in a foreign versus a second language setting. Certain input and tasks would be more available and feasible in a second language environment than a foreign language environment, because in the former there are many more natural resources in the target language and many more native speakers of the language with whom to interact. Yet because of the Internet, the foreign language environment now contains instant L2 input (not just written text, but also multimedia that could help develop multiple skills) that were simply unavailable to learners in times past. In locations where students have easy access to the Internet, teachers can take advantage of new input in simulations and WebQuests. The widespread presence of games and videogames on the Internet creates additional input possibilities. However, in some Asian countries, many learners are already so involved in L1 videogames for entertainment that they might not recognize L2 game-based or videogame-based tasks as a serious endeavor. The context determines the relevance of various types of input.

Linguistic Complexity
An important task factor is linguistic complexity (Dahl, 2004; Foster & Skehan, 1996; Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Skehan, 1996a), such as number of words in a sentence, amount of redundancy, degree of use of dependent clauses and other complexity-creating structures, discourse style, sequence complexity, technicality of vocabulary, concreteness or abstractness, sectioning, and other features. As noted by Dahl (2004), linguistic complexity is not synonymous with "difficulty" but is instead an objective property of a system-a measure of the amount of information needed to describe or reconstruct it. It is the result of historical processes of grammaticalization and involves mature linguistic phenomena (Dahl, 2004). Gibson (1998) indicated that linguistic complexity is a function of the "integration cost" and the "memory cost" associated with keeping track of obligatory syntactic requirements, such as center-embedded dependent structures, placement of large phrases earlier (heaviness effect), and ambiguity effects.

Salaberry (2001) mentioned the following issues involved with task language features: frequency and saliency; and linguistic categories, such as vocabulary, phonology and phonetics, morphosyntax, discourse, pragmatics/speech acts, and sociolinguistics. All of these contribute in various ways to the degree of linguistic complexity.

Linguistic complexity is not the same as "difficulty." The person's familiarity with the material, the topic, or the language properties mitigates some of the difficulty even when the linguistic material is complex. The difficulty is also affected by the number of language skills (reading, writing, speaking, and listening) and subskills required to do the task
.
Cognitive Load and Cognitive Complexity
Cognitive load is another feature of the task. The concept of cognitive load relates to Sweller's (1988, 1999) assumption that people's capacity to process information is limited. The more that a learner tries to hold in his or her head at a given moment, the harder the learning is and the more likely there will be a cognitive overload. Another assumption is that some tasks have a higher cognitive load. For instance, the task of integrating information from multiple sources might have a higher cognitive load than the task of following an example. Cognitive load can be increased by competing stimuli in the input or during the task, distracting the learner.

Cognitive complexity is yet another characteristic, but it relates not just to the task but also to the person. Analysis of cognitive complexity has been defined as "an aspect of a person's cognitive functioning which at one end is defined by the use of many constructs with many relationships to one another (complexity) and at the other end by the use of few constructs with limited relationships to one another (simplicity)" (Pervin, 1984, p. 507). Therefore, cognitive complexity involves a person component (unobservable cognition and observable behavior) and a task structure component. If a computer is involved, there is also an interactive system component (Rauterberg, 1992).

The task-required cognitive processing operations can be complex (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Ikeda & Takeuchi, 2000; Richards & Rodgers, 2001; Skehan, 1996a), but not every cognitively complex task is viewed as difficult. Whether or not a particular student actually perceives a given, cognitively complex task to be difficult and challenging depends considerably the student's familiarity with the kind of cognitive operations required.

Interaction and Output Demands
Presence or absence of a demand for output is a task factor. Swain (1985) and Scarcella and Oxford (1992) emphasized the importance of students' providing comprehensible output in task situations, often through interaction with others. Task interaction may be one-way, as in one person talking and the other listening or writing notes. It may be two-way (Long, 1985; Richards & Rodgers, 2001), as in two individuals engaged in an information-gap task (Doughty & Pica, 1986; Nunan, 1989) or sharing personal experiences (Foster & Skehan, 1996). It may be multi-way, as in a group discussion, role-play, or simulation (Crookall & Oxford, 1990). Among many examinations of which types of tasks promote L2 learning (see, e.g., Plough & Gass, 1993; Robinson, 1995; Yule et al. 1992), a review by Pica et al. (1993) reported that negotiation of meaning is most likely to occur when learners are involved in an interaction with the following four features:

*Each of the students holds a different portion of information that must be exchanged and manipulated in order to reach the task outcome.
*Both students are required to request and supply this information to each other.
*Students have the same goal.
*Only one outcome is possible from their attempts to meet the goal.
Thus, qualitative differences in the nature of the negotiation of meaning resulting from different tasks and different types of interaction, as Nunan (2004) also pointed out.

However, interaction and output might not be essential, depending on the task purpose. For learning the use of relative clauses, Tanaka (1996, in Ellis, 2003a) found that practicing with input proved to be more efficient than practicing with output (using relative clauses in traditional production-practice tasks). Input practice tasks helped students understand relative clauses better, and their ultimate production ability was just as strong with input practice tasks as with traditional production-practice tasks.

When production practice is the goal of the task, complexity of the output becomes a task factor. Output complexity relates to the complexity of language the learner uses and the cognitive sophistication of the output, both of which depend on the learner's willingness to take risks in restructuring forms and concepts (Foster & Skehan, 1996; Skehan, 1998b).

Allowable Amount of Planning
The amount of planning (a metacognitive learning strategy; see Oxford, 1990) allowed or encouraged is a factor in how well the learner accomplishes the task. Foster and Skehan (1996) examined the influence of task type and degree of planning on three different aspects of L2 performance: fluency, accuracy, and complexity. The study employed three types of tasks (personal information exchange, narrative, and decision-making) under three planning conditions (unplanned, planned but without detail, and planned with detail). Results indicated that planning had clear effects on both fluency and complexity of participants' output. However, planning was not the key to accuracy. In fact, less detailed planners were more accurate than non-planners and those who planned in detail. Interactions emerged between task type and planning conditions. Effects of planning were greater with narrative and decision-making tasks than with personal information exchange tasks. In their discussion, Foster and Skehan noted that a trade-off existed between the goals of performance complexity and performance accuracy. They explained that individuals have a limited capacity for attention, as noted earlier, so when a task is more cognitively demanding, attention is diverted from formal linguistic features-the basis of accuracy-to dealing with these cognitive requirements.